October 28, 2010

Pro-Choice Lizard Applauds "Personhood" Vote

The good rednecks in Mississississississippippippi (I never know where to stop!) have an astonishing, utterly original idea that nobody seems ever to have thought of before: Rather than debate the extent of a woman's "right" to abort a zygote/embryo/foetus, they first want to settle whether that entity is a legal person:

A traditional-values group is jubilant at the renewed likelihood that Mississippi voters -- among the most pro-life in the nation -- will have a "personhood" measure on their 2011 ballots....

Measure 26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to say that "the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

I think the theory is that, at whatever point the entity becomes a legal person (fertilization or later, as the state initiative specifies), aborting it is killing a person and can only be justified on grounds that would justify killing someone who had already been born (perhaps only to save the life of the mother). One presumes a determination that the entity was a person would also turn an assault that led to miscarriage into a homicide.

The flip side, of course, is that before reaching the personhood-point, the entity is not a legal person; it does not have a "right" to life; and it can be legally aborted for much lesser cause, perhaps even for convenience.

Of course, Misisipi (is that too few?) notwithstanding, a "personhood" initiative need not specify fertilization as the point at which personhood obtains. A state initiative could specify some other point of gestation instead; some other, not quite so anti-abortion group could put a measure on the ballot to declare that personhood began at the beginning of the third trimester, or when it reached some particular developmental stage. (My personal preference is that the foetus becomes a person when the cerebral cortex activates, which should be detectable in each individual case, if absolutely necessary, via a PET scan.)

In Colorado, for example, abortion prohibitionists tried a similar initiative two years ago, Colorado Amendment 48; it was crushed at the polls by 46 points, 73 Nay to 27 Yea. But an initiative that set personhood to begin at some defined later point in the pregnancy might have a much better chance of passing in a less-conservative state like Colorado or California, Florida or Washington, New York or New Mexico. I suspect most folks are more comfortable defining personhood as occuring later than conception -- but long before the eighth or ninth month, possibly even before the third trimester.

My point for decades -- ever since Roe v. Wade, actually -- has been that both sides are fighting the abortion wars bass-ackwards; instead of pushing for laws banning abortion or court cases declaring abortion a sacrament, we should begin with first principles:

You first must decide at what point of gestation, between conception to birth, the growing entity becomes a legal person.

The personhood decision can only be made via a vote by the peoples' representatives in the legislature or by the people directly by referendum.

The personhood point must be written into the state constitution, not merely the state code, to prevent state judges from simply throwing it out at whim.

It must pass muster with the U.S. Supreme Court, so that local federal district and circus courts cannot throw it out, either.

After which, abortion and every other related question will simply fall out without tears from the personhood determination.

But wait... If each state can pass its own personhood amendment setting a unique point where the entity becomes a legal person, and if some states can decline to pass any personhood initiative or bill at all, then won't a disparity exist from state to state on the legality of abortion? You might have a case where a girl could get a abortion in one state but not in another.

Why yes, Poindexter, it will; but that's a feature, not a bug: It's the essence of federalism. If somebody doesn't like the personhood declaration in his state and the abortion and assault laws it yields, then he can move. Just as he can move if he doesn't like the taxes in his state, or the way the state and local law-enforcement authorities handle drug cases, or the policy of his state on health insurance, energy, water, welfare, banking, business licences, or having to use a "jug handle" to make a bleeping left turn (hello, Garden Staters!)

There are no internal passports required; if you don't like your local laws, move to a different locality. And if you are a sexually active female under the age of consent, and you live in a state like Mxyzptlki that declares a zygote to be a legal person, thus banning abortion -- then perhaps you should rethink your social relationships, at least until you're old enough to move to Colorado, or somesuch.

So even though I would personally vote against Mrs. Hippie's Measure 26, since I don't believe one fertilized cell constitutes a legal person, I applaud the fact that the state is trying to define personhood first, before embarking on a campaign to end abortion. On one of the great moral arguments of our society, the rest of the United States should look to Mississippi. (There, see? We may veer back and forth; but we always comes our right in the end.)

Trackback Pings

» Pro-Choicer Applauds “Personhood” Vote from The Greenroom
The good rednecks in Mississississississippippippi (I never know where to stop!) have an astonishing, utterly original idea that nobody seems ever to have thought of before: Rather than debate the extent of a woman’s “right” to abort ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 28, 2010 5:46 PM

Comments

This gets rid of the straw man of people who "argue" that one should count the birthday from conception and not birth. Similarly, they pretend that those who are against abortion must treat contraception the same as abortion. In any case, this does give a decent starting point for the argument. I personally would wish to follow the rules of my religion (Orthodox Jew) which seem (to my biased mind) as "obviously" correct (:-).

The question that may arise from this definition might be "Can a child be aborted to save the life of the mother?" I think that the definition of "personhood" may be too extreme. Of course we already agree that children have fewer rights than adults and that those rights are granted by society at different ages. Examples include the "age of consent", drinking, voting, driving, and military service.

The rape and incest exceptions in most abortion laws (which I disagree with) would also have to be addressed at a much different level once "personhood" is defined. Assuming that such a child cannot be murdered after birth would imply that the newly defined "person" could not be aborted either.

I believe that you're half right, Dafydd. Yes, we need life protection in state constitutions, so that judges cannot simply tear it away; but, at the same time, the protection has to change with the people, or our state constitutions will become the same sort of political football our Supreme Court is.

I shall quote one paragraph, but let me assure you that there are many more as well written:

The salient point is this: Roe V. Wade has had a disastrous and insidious effect on the highest judicial process in the country. It has hijacked an entire branch of the United States government, which means we only have two left. It has reduced all public discussion of constitutional law to one word: ABORTION. The grand legacy of John Marshall, John Jay, and Oliver Wendell Holmes is now represented by a single lump of tissue: ABORTION. The evolution of judicial thinking in the greatest nation on earth has been stopped dead by ABORTION. The vitally important democratic function of reviewing and choosing suitable candidates for the greatest court in history has been gruesomely hewed down to a single splinter: ABORTION. Blind-folded Justice is almost mute; she can only croak the word ABORTION.

-Wm

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at October 28, 2010 8:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr

I forgot to add, but perhaps it's well that it go into a separate post: I think it would be wiser to put the boundary line into the hands of the legislature. They are elected by an explicitly political process, and there's no way to ruin it by adding MORE politics.

So put the meaning of the protections into the constitution, and put the hard decisions about exactly where to draw the lines into the hands of the people's representatives.

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at October 28, 2010 8:45 PM

So put the meaning of the protections into the constitution, and put the hard decisions about exactly where to draw the lines into the hands of the people's representatives.

I'm guessing you don't live in California <g>.

The state judges here learnt long ago that if they disagree with any law, they simply rule that it violates the California constitution, which is so long and convoluted that nobody really knows what's in it.

A perfect example occurred when the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22, which set the traditional definition of marriage into the state code. In the decision "In Re Marriage Cases," the court held that the law banning same-sex marriage (and polygamy, by the way) ran afoul of the state constitutional article requiring "equal rights" under the law. Four out of seven justices concurred, three dissented, and Prop 22 was struck down.

But when Proposition 8, an initiative containing the exact same wording as Prop 22, was passed again, but this time as a state constitutional amendment -- writing the traditional definition of marriage into the California constitution itself -- the state Supreme Court was forced to abide it.

(It's currently under attack again in the courts; but that's a federal district and now appellate court, not a state court. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold Prop 8, and that will be that.)

When this topic came up previously here in reptile-land I made an argument that was chastised by the management as being too, uh, indirect. Here’s the same argument in unvarnished form:

On both sides of the abortion issue, there are significant numbers of intelligent people of good will -- not necessarily a majority, but significant numbers. Any person who cannot accept this proposition probably does not belong to the group of people described in it.

The remainder of this discussion concerns only the arguments, positions, and actions of those intelligent people of good will.

Advocates on both sides of the abortion issue have heard the opposing arguments but are nonetheless convinced their own side is correct. Both sides can act on their own convictions insofar as their personal behavior is concerned without directly affecting anyone on the other side.

Many abortion opponents think that everyone should abide by their judgment. This often takes the form of advocating laws to disallow many (most? all?) abortions.

Intelligent people of good will who oppose abortion should think carefully about imposing their will on others. Remember that your arguments, including those you consider to be “moral imperatives,” while you may find them persuasive, have been rejected by intelligent people of good will who happen to disagree with you.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at October 28, 2010 10:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

The problem with defining personhood at any point prior to actual and complete birth is that you're going to anger somebody. The further back you go with it, the more you anger the pro-"choice" crowd and the closer you leave it, the more you anger the prolife crowd. On the other hand, angering both sides usually means you're about right.

I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was right, but the pro-abortion people have destroyed its usefulness as a standard. That decision was that states may "regulate" abortion after 20 weeks, roughly the time at which a child may survive outside the womb. In other words, they became a "person" at the point at which they are no longer dependent. We could quibble about the fine points-- 18, 20, 22 or 24 weeks-- but that is the only point between conception and birth that makes sense. Unfortunately, the pro-abortionists have interpreted that sensible decision as allowing any abortion for anybody at any time, including during the birthing process, and have largely succeeded in stifling almost all state "regulation."

OTOH, a South Carolina judge has already ruled, on the basis of contract law, that a late term abortion is illegal. If the mother does not terminate the pregnancy prior to that point, she has entered an implicit contract to continue, just as birthing a child obligates a parent to see to its well-being. This has the advantage of covering those rape and incest exceptions.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at October 29, 2010 7:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: BlueNight

As a longtime reader of science fiction, I have both longed for and dreaded a day when legislation would be required on this matter.

I have a religious opinion which I think you can guess, and a gut instinct, which (surprisingly to myself) is not as expansive, and is still beyond what most such laws would cover.

The above hissed in response by: BlueNight at October 29, 2010 9:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: Carbonel

You first must decide at what point of gestation, between conception to birth, the growing entity becomes a legal person

Holy Khreppe on a stick.

In the history of the 20th century, hecatombs have been built on the principle that governments get to decide which members of h. sapiens are people (to whom rights and duties apply) and which are gusanos, cockroaches, and other non-persons who may be disposed of or used as the state decides.

Are you (and the Mississipians) out of your frakking minds? Sorry: no, of course you're not. You have this Great Idea that Will Solve Everything. It just appears that way to folks looking from the outside at the gulags, lao gais, and mass-graves.

The pro-abortion rights folk are asserting the sovreignty of the female body: it makes no matter whether there is a living creature inside it, her offspring (to which every civilized society believes parents owe a minimal duty) that is in fact a unique individual member of h. sapiens. So long as this creature--person or no--intrudes upon her person, his, her or its trespass may be punishable by death. It lives by her sufference and only that.

Allowing the state the power to determine when (and if!) anyone is or is not a member of the human race will not effectively ammeliorate the above. But oh, the fun and games this will open for the stalinist. It's to the credit of the anti-abortion rights crowd that they have percieved for so many years that the pursuit of their goal is not worth the price of giving the U.S. government this power.

The above hissed in response by: Carbonel at October 31, 2010 11:58 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in,
.
Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Powerhouses

Milblogs

Bear Flag League

The Bear Flag League blogroll will resume when BFL switches from BlogRolling to some other link-management site that does not trigger "malware" security alerts. We apologize for the inconvenience, but, well, you know.